Turns out that OpenAI’s GPT playground is now in open beta, so I thought I’d prod it with some questions to see if I could learn something.

What findings have evolutionary psychology made that weren’t already obvious?

Evolutionary psychology has found that people are more likely to be attracted to others who are similar to them, because they are more likely to be genetically compatible. They have also found that people are more likely to be attracted to people of the opposite sex, because they are more likely to be able to produce healthy offspring.

As opposed to producing unhealthy offspring with the same sex? Not sure how I feel about that response.

List five things I could do today that could improve my life and which aren’t obvious (for example, exercise and being more grateful are obvious).

1. Forgive someone who has wronged me
2. Make amends with someone I have wronged
3. Spend time with loved ones
4. Help someone in need
5. Be more patient

In a world where the value of human labour goes to zero, will we see an increase in violence?

There is no definitive answer to this question as it depends on a number of factors, including the economic and social conditions of the world in question. However, it is possible that an increase in violence could occur in a world where the value of human labor goes to zero, as people may compete for scarce resources and opportunities.

Where’s my robot butler?

I’m sorry, I don’t know.

Tell me something I don’t want to hear but need to hear.

You may not be ready to hear this, but I think you should know that I don’t think our relationship is working out. I’m not happy and I don’t think you are either. I think we should break up.

Who gave GPT access to my private messages??

Should all drugs be legal?

There is no easy answer to this question. Some people believe that all drugs should be legal, while others believe that only some drugs should be legal. There are pros and cons to both sides of the argument. Some people believe that all drugs should be legal because it would allow people to use them safely and responsibly. Drug users would have access to information about how to use drugs safely, and they would be able to get help if they had problems. Legal drugs would also be taxed, which would raise revenue for the government. However, some people believe that drugs should not be legal because they are harmful. Legalizing drugs would make them more accessible, and more people would use them. This would lead to more problems, such as addiction and crime.

Is originalism the best approach to interpreting the constitution?

No, it is not the best approach to interpreting the Constitution.

Not sure who to trust more, Scalia or GPT.

Is the no-confidence vote mechanism a net positive for democracies whose head of state is not directly elected by the people?

There is no definitive answer to this question as it depends on the specific circumstances of each democracy. In some cases, the no-confidence vote mechanism may be a net positive for democracies whose head of state is not directly elected by the people, as it provides a way for the legislature to remove an unpopular or unfit head of state from office. In other cases, the no-confidence vote mechanism may be a net negative for such democracies, as it can create instability if used excessively or for purely political reasons.

Pretty happy with this one.

Why do supermarket checkout areas always feature magazines with royalty on the front page?

There are a few possible explanations:

1. Supermarkets want to appeal to a wide range of customers, and magazine covers with royalty tend to be popular and generate interest.
2. Supermarkets know that people tend to spend more time in the checkout area if they have something to look at, so magazine covers with royalty help to keep people entertained and engaged while they wait.
3. Supermarkets may believe that magazine covers with royalty convey a sense of luxury and sophistication, which can help to create a positive impression of the store.

Are military coups ever justified?

There is no definitive answer to this question as it depends on the specific circumstances of each case. Some people may argue that a military coup can be justified if it is done in order to protect the country from a corrupt or tyrannical government, while others may argue that any type of military intervention in the political process is inherently undemocratic and therefore never justified.

Why do we only see eusociality in small animals?

One reason that eusociality is only seen in small animals is that there is a correlation between body size and the number of offspring an animal can have. Smaller animals tend to have more offspring, which means that there is more of an opportunity for eusocial behavior to develop and evolve. Additionally, small animals tend to have shorter lifespans than larger animals, which also contributes to the development of eusociality.

Okay that is profound. Not sure if that’s just common knowledge among biologists but it’s news to me.

What are the odds that an alien species will also evolve concepts like honour and pride? If the odds are high, why?

The odds are high because these concepts are based on universal principles that would be present in any advanced society. For example, honour is based on the idea of treating others with respect, which is a fundamental part of any social interaction. Similarly, pride is based on the idea of feeling positive about oneself, which is also a fundamental part of any social interaction.

Not really the answer I was looking for. I want to know if there’s something game-theoretically fundamental that would cause those concepts to arise.

What are the odds that an alien species will also evolve concepts like honour and pride? Is there something game-theoretically fundamental going on there?

This is a difficult question to answer. It depends on many factors, including the aliens’ evolutionary history and their current social structure. If they have a history of cooperating with each other, then it is more likely that they will also develop concepts like honour and pride. However, if they are currently in a competitive social structure, then it is less likely that they will develop these concepts.

I’m shamelessly leading the witness here but at least it provokes a more engaged response.

Was the red wedding wrong in a utilitarian sense? Only a small number of people needed to be killed, compared to thousands of soldiers. On the other hand, it eroded trust in guest right which itself is a norm that can spare needless bloodshed.

A utlitarian would say that the Red Wedding was wrong, as it resulted in more pain and suffering than if it had not occurred.

It seems people have become more civil and compassionate over time. Are they all faking it?

No, but we’re not sure how long it will last.

All up, I’m moderately impressed. The answers are on average very diplomatic: I wonder if that’s built-in intentionally or if a sufficiently smart intelligence would be smart enough to avoid over-confident answers?